Google is the patent troll here. They sued Apple first via the Motorola subsidiary.

Motorola sued Apple long before Google was involved in any way and even before Motorola Mobility was spun off in January 2011. The Moto suits go back to 2010. Google bought Motorola Mobility from Motorola in 2012, not even making an offer for them until August of 2011. Google has never sued Apple or Microsoft, even thru it's MM subsidiary.

It's easy to lose track, so there's a Wiki cheat-sheet to fall back on when you get confused. FWIW it was Nokia that gets credit for starting the smartphone wars.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smartphone_warsEdited by Gatorguy - 11/1/13 at 6:32am

I am a bit confused, the agreement was to executer FRAND [Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory] terms of Standards Essential Patents, SEPs. However, I do not see "%u2026 involve technologies that helps to pair Internet search terms with advertising related to the search. %u2026" as SEPs. Am I missing something? Non-SEPs are entirely legitimate to deny license [that is create a monopoly or competitive advantage] or to license on whatever terms the Non-SEP owner elects. In the case of Google, if the patents in question hold up under review [and many many don't], then this may go to the core of Google business model, that is, very very valuable and as such the patent holders may legitimately ask for a lot of money.

We all know Google is on their way up and nothing will stop them, just like Apple.

OEMs and Microsoft, on the other hand...

Let's be honest: Android is absolutely fantastic and the best option for those that can't afford expensive phones. It gave billions of users the chance of having a smartphone, something Apple is not interested in. I just find it fantastic how Google found a way to make money from advertisers and other companies, while providing fantastic products. Some would say "information this", "privacy that", as if it is some sort of conspiracy. For those: Grow up and look around you.

No one is being "violated" on anyway, just like happens outside of your or my house. The internet is a public space, and that's great.

Since Apple doesn't give options for billions of people that want and can afford smartphones for less than 400$ (and don't like to get raped by carriers) and Android just gets more and more relevant, I wish Apple would support it like they do with Windows. At least try to earn some money from it while porting itunes and other software so I can get my information synced properly. After all, it Apple really believes that they have a superior product, no one would run away from iOS and only advantages are visible.

As far as patents go, I don't like the idea of buying dying companies just for patents. That's irrational and wrong. Besides, Apple has the right to sue others for infringement using their own patents, since companies like Samsung clearly copied them. But Google? I don't know.

Having said that, even if Google was guilty, they did the right thing, from a consumer point of view. What did Apple lost? Billions of dollars? Looks like they have more than enough, already.

Google had enough money to try and buy the patents, but played a silly game (pi dollars as a bid?) and were even invited into the consortium, but declined. Google certainly valued the patents then.

Let Google use some of that advertising income to fairly pay for the IP that they infringe.

I am a bit confused, the agreement was to executer FRAND [Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory] terms of Standards Essential Patents, SEPs. However, I do not see "%u2026 involve technologies that helps to pair Internet search terms with advertising related to the search. %u2026" as SEPs. Am I missing something? Non-SEPs are entirely legitimate to deny license [that is create a monopoly or competitive advantage] or to license on whatever terms the Non-SEP owner elects. In the case of Google, if the patents in question hold up under review [and many many don't], then this may go to the core of Google business model, that is, very very valuable and as such the patent holders may legitimately ask for a lot of money.

I don't think anyone claimed that search patents were essential to any standard. Even the patents being used against HTC, Samsung, Huawei by Rockstar may not be FRAND-pledged.

Having said that, even if Google was guilty, they did the right thing, from a consumer point of view. What did Apple lost? Billions of dollars? Looks like they have more than enough, already.

I'm not even going to take on the rubbish in the first part of your post. Somebody else can do that.

Are you really so naive. Theft is theft (if that is in fact what happened)--no matter if it is one billion-dollar company stealing from other billion-dollar companies. Google is not Robin Hood. Their actions were undertaken solely for the benefit of their own company. Any collateral benefit that you believe consumers have realized is secondary, at best.

Suppose somebody ripped off one of your fingernails. You have nine others, still. That's more than enough--and the missing one will grow back over time. Would you be okay with that?

Looks like the Thermonuclear war has commenced. I bet Google had no clue Nortel had patents and such on internet searching and advertising. Hell Apple and company probably did not know since everyone was focused on the wireless patents and Google missed the white elephant in the room.

There are many companies who have patents which they do not bother enforcing since it is not core to their business and it looks like Nortel had a few and Apple probably instructed the holding company to go through all 6000 to see if they could use any of those against Google and friends, i.e. not the wireless ones since they were probably barred from doing so.

Yeah I know the Rockstar is private company and said they are not influenced by owners, yeah do you really believe that. Apple gave $2.6B therefore they have some level of influence, that may not be directing or pointing at a particular patent and saying go after google, but the CEO knows where is bread is buttered.

The thing is that these Nortel patents has been known and used by the wireless industry since the day the patents were approved. Many, if not most, are SEP. And the I way I understood the auction agreement is that anyone that had an agreement to license any of Nortel patents before the auction will keep that agreement after auction, when the patents changes hand

That's one of the sneaky but IMO apparently well-planned parts. The obligation to adhere to the existing licensing contracts applied to Apple, Microsoft and the other members of the Rockstar Bidco group. Since then 4000 of those patents have been given to a new company, Rockstar Consortium, who has even furthered distanced the original bidders by transferring them yet again to companies with creative names like MobileStar. According to a post at FossPatents several months ago any obligations don't carry over to the subsequent transfer "whateverStar's" so that Rockstar Consortium is free to demand new contract terms if they wish. All in all a very smart move on the part of Apple and Microsoft who can claim "who me?" and "what promises" while Rockstar and it's associated companies are tasked with the dirty work a PAE is supposed to do. I love the first sentence of todays' Mueller blog:

"Almost two and a half years ago, Google lost the Nortel patents auction to a consortium of six industry leaders (Apple, BlackBerry, EMC, Ericsson, Microsoft, Sony) who just wanted to clear the market before anyone would abuse Nortel's patents..." So Rockstar Bidco only wanted to be a force for good in the world.Edited by Gatorguy - 11/1/13 at 7:47am

Meanwhile, Google's lawyers, Quinn Emanuel are facing sanctions over their apparent disregard for the courts by leaking confidential licensing information in various Samsung cases contrary to specific orders specifying the information was restricted to the lawyers only.

Rockstar's lawyers will probably object to any attempt at discovery of existing licensing agreements by Quinn Emanuel on the grounds of the upcoming sanctions and quite rightfully so.

I wonder if it will affect their ability to defend Google and the others involved in these cases.

Thermonuclear, in for the kill.

Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.

“Was there a violation of the protective order or not?” Judge Grewal asked.

“If inadvertent disclosure is a violation, we violated it,” Quinn said, adding that Quinn Emanuel has changed its policy on redactions, now requiring such documents to be reviewed by "two sets of eyes" at the firm, and one of the firm's partners will be responsible for the process.

In reply to Apple's counsel:
“I'm not yet satisfied that sanctions are warranted,” Judge Grewal said.

I'm not even going to take on the rubbish in the first part of your post. Somebody else can do that.

Are you really so naive. Theft is theft (if that is in fact what happened)--no matter if it is one billion-dollar company stealing from other billion-dollar companies. Google is not Robin Hood. Their actions were undertaken solely for the benefit of their own company. Any collateral benefit that you believe consumers have realized is secondary, at best.

Suppose somebody ripped off one of your fingernails. You have nine others, still. That's more than enough--and the missing one will grow back over time. Would you be okay with that?

What theft? AFAIK, Google stole nothing, unlike Samsung, and this case has nothing to do with that. Looks like Google is involved with other stuff, related to search.

They took Android and used the inspiration they got from iOS, because it was so superior, at the risk of becoming a "me too" irrelevant product. But guess what: Apple's strategy (with a salt of arrogance) and Microsoft's (and everyone else's) incompetence gave Google a great opportunity, and they rightfully took it with style.

Not only that, Android differentiated itself to the point that no one (that is rational and has enough knowledge to not be seen as a retard) treats vanilla Android as a inferior copy. Instead, the world sees it as an alternative on the high end (against iOS) and the absolutely best option on middle and low end of the market.

Isn't this great for all of us?

Now, it's up to Apple to push harder and keep their "best" and "worth the cost" status, and Android OEMs to become originals and demolish Samsung's illegal dominance.

Meanwhile... I bought a cheaper Android phone and have Cyanogenmod running on it like a champ. It's not an iPhone, but it was the best deal, all things considered. I just don't understand why Apple doesn't try to earn some money from it, while providing a better experience for the Apple costumers that had no choice but go Android.

Please, stop trying to treat billion dollar corporations as "people". It's just as stupid as saying that since because I refuse to not use the internet during a year (because of spoilers) and paying 30 dollars for a season of big bang theory (when it comes to my country), it makes me a thieve.

Google is the patent troll here. They sued Apple first via the Motorola subsidiary.

Google infringed on Apple's patents, and flagrantly.

Google demanded that Apple pay absurd fees for FRAND patents.

I'm glad to see Rockstar going after Google's core business, since Google hypocritically violates others patents while demanding non-FRAND terms for FRAND patents of its own (that it only got by acquisition.)

As far as I'm aware the only patent google actually invented is the original page rank, which is actually owned by Stanford, not Google.

Whether Eric Schmidt shows remorse for his crimes or not, he's still a piece of dirt. Personally, I'd like to see him charged, he committed a crime by violating his duties as a board member, and belongs in jail. Short of that, I'd settle for his bankruptcy. Alas, I know justice won't be served in this case.

Those two statements are not accurate.

Motorola was suing Apple long before Google got involved. Part of Google buying Motorola was they are required to FRAND licence and not sue competitors on SEP. The issue with Motorola and Apple today is the fact Apple has not paid Motorola a dime for the SEP patents which are required to pay in FRAND, the price is in dispute. The reason that Google has the restriction not to sue on SEP is the fact it was revealed Motorola was requiring Apple to freely licence all of Apple' iOS Non-SEP in order to get FRAND on the SEP. They were blackmailing Apple and this all happen years before Google got involved they end holding the bag of crap that Motorola started.

BTW, Apple is paying FRAND on SEP with nokia and others, Apple has settle all those licensing issue with everyone but Motorola and Samsung.

Note that the original claim called Apple not a patent troll per se but rather "the proud parent of a patent troll," which has not been contradicted. Rockstar is not Apple or Microsoft but merely a shell company. It would be the same situation as if Samsung were pulling the strings behind the scenes at VimetX.

The important thing is: it's OK when Google sues, but it's evil when Apple does it.

The important thing is: it's OK when Google sues, but it's evil when Apple does it.

IMO it's not really OK when Google sues for IP infringement over software algorithms either. I remember reading about them suing British Telecom a few months back. Is there any other IP lawsuit they've ever initiated? (Short answer: No)

Eventually they may be backed into a corner of course, so who knows what they may do in the future. Still won't make it a good thing as far as I'm concerned. Apple may be the most sued for IP infringement but Google might not be far behind them.Edited by Gatorguy - 11/1/13 at 9:05am

They took Android and used the inspiration they got from iOS, because it was so superior, at the risk of becoming a "me too" irrelevant product.

They took confidential Apple BoD information, because the Google CEO was on the Apple BoD, and used it to create a competing product. That isn't just stealing, that is a betrayal of Apple shareholders by an Apple director.

They took confidential Apple BoD information, because the Google CEO was on the Apple BoD, and used it to create a competing product. That isn't just stealing, that is a betrayal of Apple shareholders by an Apple director.

If that were true how would you explain Apple not going after Schmidt immediately, perhaps Google too? And why no similar claims against Levinson who served on both Google and Apple's BoD at the same time and in the same timeframe as Schmidt? Sounds more like an entertaining story.

If that were true how would you explain Apple not going after Schmidt immediately, perhaps Google too? And why no similar claims against Levinson who served on both Google and Apple's BoD at the same time and in the same timeframe as Schmidt? Sounds more like an entertaining story.

Because if they sued Schmidt, it would be paid by Apple's BoD insurance, and would only hurt Apple (higher insurance costs from then on). They did go after Google, and are continuing to.

The people to sue wouldn't be Apple, it would be a class action suit by the shareholders way back then, and I have no idea why that hasn't happened.

They took confidential Apple BoD information, because the Google CEO was on the Apple BoD, and used it to create a competing product. That isn't just stealing, that is a betrayal of Apple shareholders by an Apple director.

To justify legal action, one would have to cite actual patents being infringed, not merely complain about someone following a general trend in product design.

This is a new set of infringements by Google on Rockstar held patents.

There is going to be a lot of Google-colored blood in the streets once this one goes to court.

And still Google resists jumping in the fray. Can you imagine the industry disruption if Google were to arm a couple of NPE's with a few thousand of the approx. 20,000 patents it owns? Fortunately it appears they don't believe in tit-for-tat.

So Rockstar Consortium is the epitomy of an NPE, what many refer to a a patent troll. They exist solely to get the maximum returns from monetizing patents, in this case donated by Microsoft and Apple who benefit from the resultant lawsuits, and with no products of their own are immune from IP counter-suits. IMO a sneaky move on the part of Bidco group but well-played from a business perspective. Apple and the others get plausible deniability of any responsibility for Rockstar's actions.

Sadly, I think you may be right.

Looking at this from another direction, the patents in question may be a bit dubious, often a sign of trolling. The patent 7,895,178 claims the following (I have abbreviated it to get to the meaning but the full text is at the end of this post):

So, in every day English, a search engine responds with the results of a search but also includes an advert that matches those same search terms. As the user refines their search to home in on their target, the adverts become more specific too.

In the UK (I can't speak for the US), it's not possible to patent something that is obvious to a practitioner in the appropriate field. This one looks to me to be obvious to the man on the Clapham Omnibus (a famous statement in UK law to describe Joe Public), never mind to a practitioner. So is this really a real innovation that should be allowed to be patented? Personally, I think we'd be better off without such patents.

If that's true then we find one organisation using an artificial legal argument to take money from another. Following the money, we find that Rockstar's owners and the lawyers benefit from this. There is no benefit to the industry or its customers (that's us) because nothing got invented and the overall amount of money available to invent new things got reduced (by the lawyers' fees). The fact that the first organisation is a proxy for Apple et al and the other is Google should not sway our judgement!

So I agree, it all looks like patent trolling and, regrettably, I think Apple just lost some of the moral high-ground.

And still Google resists jumping in the fray. Can you imagine the industry disruption if Google were to arm a couple of NPE's with a few thousand of the approx. 20,000 patents it owns? Fortunately it appears they don't believe in tit-for-tat.

The original infringements by Google might be enough to end them as a company if Rockstar decides to not offer a licensing deal. On the other hand, I believe they will offer a licensing deal so as not to draw the ire of the government...however, that doesn't mean the licensing fee won't be a large one.

Looking at this from another direction, the patents in question may be a bit dubious, often a sign of trolling. The patent 7,895,178 claims the following (I have abbreviated it to get to the meaning but the full text is at the end of this post):

So, in every day English, a search engine responds with the results of a search but also includes an advert that matches those same search terms. As the user refines their search to home in on their target, the adverts become more specific too.

In the UK (I can't speak for the US), it's not possible to patent something that is obvious to a practitioner in the appropriate field. This one looks to me to be obvious to the man on the Clapham Omnibus (a famous statement in UK law to describe Joe Public), never mind to a practitioner. So is this really a real innovation that should be allowed to be patented? Personally, I think we'd be better off without such patents.

If that's true then we find one organisation using an artificial legal argument to take money from another. Following the money, we find that Rockstar's owners and the lawyers benefit from this. There is no benefit to the industry or its customers (that's us) because nothing got invented and the overall amount of money available to invent new things got reduced (by the lawyers' fees). The fact that the first organisation is a proxy for Apple et al and the other is Google should not sway our judgement!

So I agree, it all looks like patent trolling and, regrettably, I think Apple just lost some of the moral high-ground.

The original infringements by Google might be enough to end them as a company if Rockstar decides to not offer a licensing deal. On the other hand, I believe they will offer a licensing deal so as not to draw the ire of the government...however, that doesn't mean the licensing fee won't be a large one.

Sounds like something you may have said before about Oracle. Perhaps better to let Rockstar win first before the death knell.Edited by Gatorguy - 11/2/13 at 1:30pm

And still Google resists jumping in the fray. Can you imagine the industry disruption if Google were to arm a couple of NPE's with a few thousand of the approx. 20,000 patents it owns? Fortunately it appears they don't believe in tit-for-tat.

I believe I quoted the patent's first claim, not its abstract. When you draft a patent, you generally make a set of graduated claims of which this is the first (the graduated bit is so you have a set of fallbacks if any given claim fails*). By all means check the other claims (I presume that's what you think "people like me" always leave out) but I don't think my quote is misleading.

Google are not seeking (AFAIK) to patent their ranking algorithms so why would they publish them? I expect they see them as one of their trade secrets.

I'm not familiar with the details of patent law, but I've been told that one can patent not general concepts but rather specific implementations of them. The claim here seems rather short on details. For example, what is the algorithm proposed for "selecting at least one advertisement from an advertisement database relating to at least one of the search argument and the search results"? Are these details fleshed out elsewhere?

I'm not familiar with the details of patent law, but I've been told that one can patent not general concepts but rather specific implementations of them. The claim here seems rather short on details. For example, what is the algorithm proposed for "selecting at least one advertisement from an advertisement database relating to at least one of the search argument and the search results"? Are these details fleshed out elsewhere?

I think it's that distinction (what's general and what's specific) that I'm complaining about. In this case, I think what I quoted is really what they've patented, surprising as that seems. If you read the 'Description' section at the link I quoted you'll find more detail but, in all honesty, no more essence. Even more surprising since the patent apparently dates from 2007, it reads like something 10 years older [Edit: on further reading, it is a continuation of a patent originally filed in 1997 - good guess huh!].

As an example of patenting generalities, BT (British Telecom, as was) famously patented the hyperlink. That patent was from the days of Prestel (Viewdata) so you could argue that, back then, the concept of selecting a textual fragment that then caused you automatically to receive related 'pages' of data was genuinely innovative. Thankfully, attempts to enforce the patent were abandoned (imagine collecting payment based upon every click on the WWW).

I'm not familiar with the details of patent law, but I've been told that one can patent not general concepts but rather specific implementations of them. The claim here seems rather short on details. For example, what is the algorithm proposed for "selecting at least one advertisement from an advertisement database relating to at least one of the search argument and the search results"? Are these details fleshed out elsewhere?

There is an arcane art to writing a good patent application. The trick is to write one that has the right balance of specific and general descriptions. Specificity so that it cannot be declared as "obvious", and generality to gain broader protections and thus, create greater patent value.

Google must have anticipated this coming back during the bidding...maybe knowing the potential risks they could/should/would have bid even more?

Unless the patent claims being asserted against Google are both valid and deemed infringed in a court of law, and the royalties ordered are into the multiple billions then Google probably made the wise choice. Unlike Apple/Microsoft who set up a PAE/NPE/Troll to sue competitors of the original bidders, Google would have been highly unlikely to set up a PAE or even file infringement lawsuits themselves. For Apple/MS it's both a bludgeon and a revenue stream. For Google it would not have been IMO.

Unless the patent claims being asserted against Google are both valid and deemed infringed in a court of law, and the royalties ordered are into the multiple billions then Google probably made the wise choice. Unlike Apple/Microsoft who set up a PAE/NPE/Troll to sue competitors of the original bidders, Google would have been highly unlikely to set up a PAE or even file infringement lawsuits themselves. For Apple/MS it's both a bludgeon and a revenue stream. For Google it would not have been IMO.

Googs could have joined Apple and Micrisoft but didn't. Sucks to be them.